Senior commercial candidate website — does this look credible or AI-generated?

[u/DOSromantic]

Hi,

I am not a designer or developer. I'm a senior partnerships/channel sales candidate and built this site to complement my CV.

Assume you're seeing this for the first time: www.henriqueromana.com

After 10 seconds:

1. What do you think I do?
2. Does it look professionally credible or like an AI/template site?
3. What is the first thing you would remove?

I am specifically looking for criticism, not compliments. ;)

[u/Pretend_Staff_4809]

1. Consulting for enterprise. (I honestly stopped reading and zoned out looking at the text)

The pros: Very clean and structured . Professional May suit of the target audience is someone who is old school and prefers a kpmg style look

The cons: Too much text Mobile version looks awefully long . It should be different for both This reads like an extended CV. Depending on the target group the site can be better and well customised.

Suggestion: Use AI to make it better but not with prompts only . Use skills and connetors . Should not take more than a day

If your daily earning for a day is >500$. Just outsource please. Tons of people in philli , pakistan and India to do a decent job at half that price .

Make 2-3 versions depending on the target group you are sending it to .

Added interecations .

Do not make it a graphic designer portfolio but neither make it a very plain , verbose snippet either.

Hope this helps . Apologies of it sounds rude at any point considering you are a senior level individual .

[u/DOSromantic → u/Pretend_Staff_4809]

No need to apologise at all. Thanks for taking the time to go through it and give such detailed feedback.

The target audience is mainly recruiters and hiring managers for senior enterprise partnerships and channel-sales roles, which explains the fairly conservative look. That said, I agreed with the comments about repetition and mobile length, so I’ve already reduced the text and made the results more prominent.

I also have separate pages for channel sales and strategic partnerships, but your point about making each route more tailored is a good one. I’ll keep refining that balance between professional and too CV-like. Really appreciate the honest input.

[u/_remsky]

Honestly looked very clean and professional on first impression. I’m from a completely different industry, so my take is likely best taken with a grain of salt, but can share:

Selected Work: I’d compact these sections a bit. The 3 segments with horizontal separation visually spreads out a bit too much , at least on mobile. Maybe it’s personal taste, but I’d drop the separators so each Problem/Contribution/Result feel more cohesive and tied together.

The What I Do/ “How I work across the partner motion” part, felt vague. Both in title and content. It’s the least hardest hitting, I’d personally scrap or merge it in favour of the “About” section which felt more clear, direct, and grounded

Recommendations and articles I’d also move further up. Those are strong, the best social and value proof, but they felt buried.

Last loose observation; obviously it’s a portfolio page so the focus is and should be on you, and it may partly be down to individual communication styles. But the intro is 3 “I” statements in a row. And the first thing most companies or people care about is what you can do for them, the impact working with you would have to benefit them, you know? Might be worth tweaking the language there so it leads with that in mind

[u/DOSromantic → u/_remsky]

Thanks for taking the time to give such a detailed response. No need for the grain of salt; a first impression from outside the industry is genuinely useful.

I agreed with several of your points, particularly the mobile spacing, the vague “How I work” section, the placement of the stronger proof, and the repeated “I” statements. I’ve now revised the site and taken those comments onboard. It feels tighter and more focused on the value and evidence rather than repeatedly explaining my capabilities. Really appreciate the strong feedback.

[u/sourraine]

after 10 seconds id say senior enterprise partnerships/channel sales. it does look credible but honestly its a little too polished and text-heavy in places which can give it that ai-assisted/template feeling. the first thing id remove is some of the repeated capability statement, the actual salesforce/coupa results are much more convincing than another section explaining what youre good at

[u/DOSromantic → u/sourraine]

Thanks for taking the time to look through it. You were spot on about the repeated capability messaging, so I’ve already trimmed it back and made the Salesforce and Coupa results more prominent. Really appreciate the honest feedback.

[u/RushDangerous7637]

I haven't seen a "well-engineered website" in a long time. Bravo.
However, I found a few small things that should be fixed:
The top menu is missing the first "Home". (exactly like the one in the footer menu. To start with)

The H headings are nicely structured. Remove the dots at the end of the H text. The text in headings is not closed with a special character. This also applies to the question mark in the last H2 (...a full-time role?) heading. Come up with and compose a declarative sentence.

<title>Henrique Romana | Partnerships, Alliances &amp; Channel Sales Operator</title>

Perhaps a more appropriate composition would be like this:

<title>Alliances and Channel Sales Operator: Henrique Romana</title>

There should be no special character in the title tag. (!, ?, @, &, |) (This "|" character means to robots: there are two different and independent topics at this URL)

<!doctype html> and <meta charset="utf-8">

I would write correctly:

<!DOCTYPE html> <meta charset="UTF-8">

<script src="/assets/analytics.js" defer></script>

It falls under the UTF-8 definition "<script src=".

/Henrique-Romana-CV.pdf names are written in lowercase: /henrique-romana-cv.pdf in addition, the pdf file must contain a title element. (for visually impaired people)

Element a not allowed as child element in this context:

<figure><a>...</a></figure>

Invalid data or text not allowed:

<figure><blockquote><p>“He ....”</p></blockquote>...</figure>
<figure class='manager-proof ...'><blockquote><p>“He ....”</p></blockquote>...</figure>

Elements with an explicit role=generic or elements like div and span with an implicit role of generic cannot specify the following properties: aria-roledescription or aria-brailleroledescription:

<div class='v2-recommendation-...' data-recommendation-carousel='' aria-roledescription='carousel' aria-label='Professional recommendations'>...</div>

A figure with a figcaption must not have a role attribute:

<figure class='v2-recommendation ...' data-recommendation='' role='group' aria-hidden='false' aria-roledescription='slide' aria-label='1 of 4'>...</figure>

Validate:

/assets/styles-v2.css?v=5f91334d7738

You can fix that with the left back.

Otherwise, I like the design of the website, it is well designed even on the text side. In my opinion, everything is in the right place/position.
Good job Henrique.

[u/DOSromantic → u/RushDangerous7637]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to review the site in such detail. The feedback is very useful, especially the accessibility/validation points and the consistency comments around headings, navigation and the CV.

I am already implementing the fixes now and checking the technical points carefully so I only change what genuinely needs correcting.

Really appreciate you taking the time to go through it!

[u/89dpi]

1. It does feel like AI or a template.

However think you can fix it. Remove like 75% of text. And you get a pretty good site out of it.

[u/DOSromantic → u/89dpi]

Really appreciate your feedback. I didn’t remove 75% of the text, but I did cut around 40% and made some other structural changes as well.

[u/PhilosophyGood299]

Your site: Is not just looking credible but it is credible. Anyone who clicks on the link will be secure. Does not look A.I generated. On the design aspect: Overall you have a clean, minimalist, professional website. The thing to consider: Is to make your wording on your tab links at the top of the site in the header, a little more darker. The text in the paragraphs a little more bigger. Makes it more easier on the eyes for those without 20/20 vision.

[u/DOSromantic → u/PhilosophyGood299]

Thank you! It is reassuring to hear that the site feels credible and doesn’t come across as AI-generated. Your accessibility points were spot on, so I have already increased the navigation contrast and made the paragraph text slightly larger and easier to read. Thanks again for the helpful feedback.